pitrevie

You are so right !

I know from a friend in Wales that he voted leave to stop immigration and with absolutely no thought about the complexity of the withdrawal process. Almost literally he seemed to think telling Brussels ' we're out ' would do.

Now in the aftermath he's complaining this isn't what he voted for and that the Leave campaign mislead him by no mention of the potentially lengthy processes to follow. So far he's not said anything about his own naivete because he mistrusts politicians as much as any of us yet accepted the supposed simplicity of voting to leave, probably because he wanted to believe it.

It was always common knowledge that the extraction process from the EU would be in the years, though this is a taff we're talking about so not surprising.

Was it ' common knowledge ', how many Brexiteers the length and breadth of Britain voted believing the process would be so simple ?

If i hadn't mentioned my friend is Welsh you would have had to find another type of unnecessary insult.

I agree and have you noticed how every time anyone wants to mention an EU Commission, unelected bureaucracy gravy train etc the only name they come up with is Kinnock. Apparently he was the only EU commissioner appointed during out time in the EU. Little wonder that so many supported Farage.

She will succeed.

And insults ( inbred, stupid woman...) by people who come to stray into the stupidest vote history can be seen as encouragement.

At the European parliament she received a standing ovation which clearly shows that the demand will be supported. This will not make be pleased to English of course, but it had to think before...

I agree and she has a mandate with every region is Scotland voting to remain by a substantial majority. However being the democrat she is Sturgeon will not use this vote alone to separate from the union she will seek a mandate from the Scottish people. Apparently its something to do with accountability.

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

And he tries to equate aviation and maritime law with locally relevant laws of all types with one big swish of his logic!

I did not mention aviation or maritime laws. Of course, there are international laws that all countries agree to adhere to, what is your point?

My point is that the people governing you need to be directly elected by you, accountable to you and able to be voted out by you. That is not the case with the EU, as you have admitted.

Incidentally, earlier you mention that the President of the Commission was elected by the EU parliament. Do you know the process? The Parliament was given a shortlist of ONE name to vote on! Sounds more like a good old Saddam Hussein style 'democracy' than a modern liberal democracy.

Yet you are now prepared to accept a man/woman and a new government that was never directly elected by the British people at the last election who voted on the basis that Cameron was to be the new PM if he won a majority. In fact Boris is now on record as saying that he sees no need to seek a new mandate if elected Tory Leader, sounds very democratic to me.

I know you didn't mention any of the laws that we are required to follow it seems you are perfectly prepared to accept those that influence our lives profoundly at all levels and in all areas but object to laws about bendy bananas and vacuum cleaners.

It is very easy for the EU Parliament if they object to the President elect to vote against him and another name comes forward.

There seems to be some confusion ( I think from scots ) how British Democracy works, let me try and help you out

We have a general election where we the people vote MP's into office, these ELECTED MP's then ELECT a prime minister from one of the ELECTED MP's

so you will see our prime minister is ELECTED not once but twice, the prime minister then appoints cabinet ministers from the ELECTED MP's

So now you see ALL our MP's are ELECTED into office by we the people.

You are mistaken the PM is never elected he is appointed on the basis that being the leader of the majority party he can command a Commons majority. He is not elected by MPs in fact the wider Conservative Party membership will vote on who gets to be the new Conservative leader. Normally the Conservative Party in Parliament would accept that result and support the new leader but there would be nothing stopping those same MPs from refusing to support his program and he would then be forced to ask for a dissolution's unless some other person could command majority support and the process would begin again. We had a general election and the people gave that majority and mandate to Cameron. Now he has resigned and we are about to get a new PM and a new government that will take far reaching decisions without first seeking a new mandate approving those decisions.

Its amazing that the very people who complain about the Brussels bureaucracy haven't got the first idea of how their own operates.

I wouldn't be so hard on him.

From academics to presidents , prime ministers etc etc pay homage to their gods and beliefs everyday..

But nothing is stronger than the power of the pussy.

It's pulled kings off thrones you know!

I agree even the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Scalia believed in the devil.

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

They are not DIRECTLY elected by the people and not DIRECTLY accountable to the people.

That is the level of accountability I expect and hopefully will have very soon.

Such is the interest in accountability that the figures in local election usually hover around the 20% mark. In the last UK general election it was around 66%. Ask any voter the names of the people currently occupying the top 3 offices in the UK government and I doubt if the majority would get one name and many would be pushed to name the PM. it was revealing listening to people being asked what Brexit was about, I shouldn't use the word revealing, hysterical was more like it. Most people dont give a damn what goes on at Westminster let alone the EU.

It is not perfect, I accept that. But at least the people have a voice and can do something about it.

Here is a good example of why it is important to have the people governing you be directly accountable to you.

Suppose the UK government introduced a new law that was unpopular. The people can lobby the government to get it changed. If the people don't get what they want they can vote them out and get a new party in. There is incentive for the government to listen to the people or they risk losing power.

Contrast this with the EU Commission. They can introduce an unpopular directive and there is no line of communication between the people and the Commission. The Commission is not elected by the people, it can't be lobbied by the people, and it can't be voted out by the people. There is no risk to the Commission in ignoring the people's wishes (except when they vote to leave the EU in a referendum!). The people turn to the ELECTED government and they just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing that they can do - EU law overrides national law. This is not democracy!

There must be a line of accountability from those who make your laws to the people.

In the UK people fought for centuries to get this right, and paid for it in blood. Now we are very close to getting it back.

The EU President is elected by a majority vote of the EU Parliament his term expires in 2019. The commissioners also have the same period and are nominated by each country belonging to the EU. MEPs can vote them out of office. Each country in the EU elects MEPs to the European Parliament. Just how much accountability do you want. Apart from every five years exactly what sway do you have over government legislation they can and do introduce unpopular measures and you will have to wait up to 5 years to get them out. We are now going to get a PM and a new government none of whom were given a mandate by the British people when they voted for Cameron.

Of course governments take unpopular decisions that is their job which is why Margaret Thatcher opposed referendums. Perhaps every time a minister of the crown proposes something we should submit it to the people that should ensure progress after all the electorate is so well informed on these matters, I thought that is why we have representative democracy.

As for being overruled by European law welcome to the 21st century. Do we make our own maritime, telecomms, aeronautical etc laws or are they something agreed in International bodies by our representatives. Our representative attend international forums where they agree to whole rafts of regulations which govern the way we live. Time to get all that power back I guess.

On topic - the headline of this thread seriously annoys me as its so obvious that both sides ran their campaign on the fear factor, and did their best to obscure any actual facts.

It would be nice to think that one day politicians will run their campaigns on facts and genuinely held belief, rather than fear - and worthless 'promises'. Unfortunately, its not going to happen in my lifetime .

Which is why we have independent sources like Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority who debunked the NHS claim of 350 million and the numerous independent financial organizations that stated what their research predicted but all of that was dismissed. So if all that is going to be dismissed then I think the only thing left is divine intervention.

So the 'remain' campaign were straight with voters?

Of course they were not which is why the claims they made were also rubbished where it was applicable.

Calm down Andrew. You're ranting aimlessly. Nobody knows the make up of the next set of political teams yet, and it's a non-issue until a general election is called.

I don't know what on earth you are talking about and I suspect neither do you. The next general election is due in about 4 years but in the next few months we will get a new PM and a completely new cabinet and you haven't got a clue who any of them are going to be.

And they can be voted out at the next election if we don't like their performance.

But nobody who voted at the last election voted for the person who is about to become PM nor any of those who who will form the government. So this new government will have no mandate and we will have to wait four years to do anything about it.

Both sides lied but about the same thing. The Brexit boys saying all these wonderful things would happen if people vote leave and the remain camp saying all these dreadful things would happen if people voted to leave. At the moment it appears that the Remain camp were far more truthful than the Brexit gang who successfully conned the British public in spectacular style.

Britain will get through these difficult times eventually but there will be consequences. Not just from leaving Europe but also because of the bitter divide there now is within the country.

The next step is to see who becomes PM, Johnson or May. Will it be the buffoon or the shoe woman?

Yep and now we are being told that controlling our own borders doesn't mean reducing immigration it just means controlling our own borders. So all that guff about 330,000 people arriving every year the size of another small town and the long line of brown skinned men will not stop but they will be controlled. Nigel will not be pleased to hear that.

Calm down Andrew. You're ranting aimlessly. Nobody knows the make up of the next set of political teams yet, and it's a non-issue until a general election is called.

I don't know what on earth you are talking about and I suspect neither do you. The next general election is due in about 4 years but in the next few months we will get a new PM and a completely new cabinet and you haven't got a clue who any of them are going to be.

Don't be so ridiculous. I will know full well who will become Prime Minister if the party I vote for wins the next general election. And I will also know which politicians from the winning party will end up in the senior government positions. It's why I've always given my vote to the party that has the senior politicians who appeal to my sensibilities, rather than along dogmatic party political lines.

What is it about the pro -EU brigade and condescension? Infantile bunch.

By the way, the guy I quoted is Andrew Macgregor Marshall and I claim my £5 (though I'll probably get it in crappy Euros that'll be worth bugger-all the next opportunity I get to spend them) .

So could you tell me now who is going to be the next PM and who is going to occupy the executive positions, try just a few of the senior ones for a good laugh. You might know who is going to be PM in any election since he will be the party leader but you have no part in his election other that electing your local MP. Furthermore apart from a few senior positions you have no idea who will occupy the other position which only the appointed PM will know when he gets around to making those appointments, so on practically every count you demonstrate that you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Just like your phony outrage at the appointments of EU officials and yet you have no such concern about the majority of appointments in your own backyard.

Since you know all the the politicians involved lets try shall we. Tell me who is going to occupy the positions of Chancellor, Foreign and Home. Those should be easy for you with your concerns about having no control over the executive.

Come back and ask me when the hustings start Andrew.

In other words you have no idea and have no input into who will occupy any of the top positions in HM government for the next possibly 4 years but you are so outraged at the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. You cannot even tell me who the PM is going to be. Obvious why you supported Brexit.

But he (and I) will in the general election that will follow. An option we never had with EU leaders until the referendum. The deceit from the pro-EU brigade just rolls off the tongue effortlessly.

Whether he, whoever that is wins the election you still get no say in the appointment of the PM nor in whom he appoints to the executive. The most you will get is to elect your local MP. You appear to have little or no grasp on the way the government is formed in the UK. Of course we don't appoint the executive of the EU just like we don't appoint our own executive. We elect MEPs and our government gets to have a say in who the executive is of the EU. At least the Americans can claim to have a little more say in who they get as President but they too have no say in who that president appoints to the executive positions. However its quite apparent that you haven't any interest in any of this but just bogus nonsense about the EU.

Don't be so ridiculous. I will know full well who will become Prime Minister if the party I vote for wins the next general election. And I will also know which politicians from the winning party will end up in the senior government positions. It's why I've always given my vote to the party that has the senior politicians who appeal to my sensibilities, rather than along dogmatic party political lines.

What is it about the pro -EU brigade and condescension? Infantile bunch.

By the way, the guy I quoted is Andrew Macgregor Marshall and I claim my £5 (though I'll probably get it in crappy Euros that'll be worth bugger-all the next opportunity I get to spend them) .

So could you tell me now who is going to be the next PM and who is going to occupy the executive positions, try just a few of the senior ones for a good laugh. You might know who is going to be PM in any election since he will be the party leader but you have no part in his election other that electing your local MP. Furthermore apart from a few senior positions you have no idea who will occupy the other position which only the appointed PM will know when he gets around to making those appointments, so on practically every count you demonstrate that you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Just like your phony outrage at the appointments of EU officials and yet you have no such concern about the majority of appointments in your own backyard.

Since you know all the the politicians involved lets try shall we. Tell me who is going to occupy the positions of Chancellor, Foreign and Home. Those should be easy for you with your concerns about having no control over the executive.

On topic - the headline of this thread seriously annoys me as its so obvious that both sides ran their campaign on the fear factor, and did their best to obscure any actual facts.

It would be nice to think that one day politicians will run their campaigns on facts and genuinely held belief, rather than fear - and worthless 'promises'. Unfortunately, its not going to happen in my lifetime .

Which is why we have independent sources like Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority who debunked the NHS claim of 350 million and the numerous independent financial organizations that stated what their research predicted but all of that was dismissed. So if all that is going to be dismissed then I think the only thing left is divine intervention.

Is the EU commission undemocratic and unelected, yes.

Was immigration numbers above the levels the government quoted, yes

Was the sovereignty of the UK taken away and rules, laws and regulations affected by the EU, yes

For me the first one was enough so I can't see a justified argument and it would seem many others would agree. That's why they voted last Thursday for leave.

I take it you understand that you will have no say in who is about to be appointed as the next PM of your country. Neither will you have any say in who he appoints to any of the executive positions in his government. Perhaps you need to leave.

But he (and I) will in the general election that will follow. An option we never had with EU leaders until the referendum. The deceit from the pro-EU brigade just rolls off the tongue effortlessly.

Whether he, whoever that is wins the election you still get no say in the appointment of the PM nor in whom he appoints to the executive. The most you will get is to elect your local MP. You appear to have little or no grasp on the way the government is formed in the UK. Of course we don't appoint the executive of the EU just like we don't appoint our own executive. We elect MEPs and our government gets to have a say in who the executive is of the EU. At least the Americans can claim to have a little more say in who they get as President but they too have no say in who that president appoints to the executive positions. However its quite apparent that you haven't any interest in any of this but just bogus nonsense about the EU.

Is the EU commission undemocratic and unelected, yes.

Was immigration numbers above the levels the government quoted, yes

Was the sovereignty of the UK taken away and rules, laws and regulations affected by the EU, yes

For me the first one was enough so I can't see a justified argument and it would seem many others would agree. That's why they voted last Thursday for leave.

I take it you understand that you will have no say in who is about to be appointed as the next PM of your country. Neither will you have any say in who he appoints to any of the executive positions in his government. Perhaps you need to leave.

_{Its wonderful to see them all now disowning what they said during their campaign. IDS has already denied the 350 million pounds for the NHS even though there is a picture of him standing in front of the Battle bus with the claim on it.}

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/eu-referendum-brexit-vote-leave-iain-duncan-smith-nhs

_{Farage also denying he ever said any such thing and for the Tory party to have made that claim was wrong. However unfortunately for him there is a video recording of him on Question time doing just that claiming the money should be used on the NHS.}

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

You have fallen for the propaganda of the pro remain press.

In the clip of Farage appearing on 'Question Time' before the referendum, when he said there would be extra money for the NHS he was referring to the figure of 10bn pounds, which is the net annual contribution to the EU (total money paid in minus total money received back). This is the official figure.

In the clip of Farage on daytime TV he was referring to the 'Vote Leave' campaign, OF WHICH HE HAD NO INVOLVEMENT. He said the figure of 350m paid weekly to the EU, which was put on the bus by 'Vote Leave', was misleading because it did not factor in the money received back.

The Independent has spliced two different videos together where he is making two different points. Ironic that they are accusing other people of lying.

Clearly, there has been exaggeration and misdirection from both camps, but ultimately they were never campaigning for office. There was never any way they could deliver on any promise, it was a referendum not a general election.

Well I have just watched the clip of Farage claiming that we should spend the 10 billion we will save by not being in the EU on the NHS etc and now like everyone else he is backtracking even on that figure along with all the others. You are quite right about the two video clips in the first Farage is telling everyone about the extra cash and in the second he is then denying that any such promise was ever made by him. He definitely states that extra cash going into the NHS as a result of not making any contributions to the EU its as clear as day on the video. The second video just shows him reneging on that.

I think your claim that this was propaganda is plain wrong its very obvious to anyone that they are two different video clips, the first of him making the promise before the vote and the second after the Brexit vote saying he didn't.

I guess his statement that should the majority also being less than about 4% that would mean a second referendum is also propaganda.

It's the only bargaining chip we have. Once article 50 is invoked, we have 2 years (possible 1 year extension if all members agree - France, yeh!! lol) to get a unanimous agreement from all the other members otherwise we default to WTO tariffs to access the EU market. Cameron, I'm sure, knows this and wants a rough outline of an agreement before switching on the clock.

It reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the sheriff puts the gun to his own head and threatens to blow his own head off if anyone comes any nearer.

_{Its wonderful to see them all now disowning what they said during their campaign. IDS has already denied the 350 million pounds for the NHS even though there is a picture of him standing in front of the Battle bus with the claim on it.}

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/eu-referendum-brexit-vote-leave-iain-duncan-smith-nhs

_{Farage also denying he ever said any such thing and for the Tory party to have made that claim was wrong. However unfortunately for him there is a video recording of him on Question time doing just that claiming the money should be used on the NHS.}

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

Yep now we have to wait for the result of the civil war in the Tory Party to abate and for them to chose a new leader before we can even get started. I hope they heed the voice of those that voted for this and elect a pro Brexit supporter, Johnson being the ideal candidate. Having stood back in amazement and watched the Americans even contemplating voting for the other blond buffoon to see this moron leading the UK is going to be wonderful, fun times ahead.

Revealed: The letter that proves Margaret Thatcher would NOT have voted to stay in Europe

• Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests' in letter
• It was revealed by Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who she handed note to in 1993
• Told him to make note public if her opinion on 'European project' came up
• Her former secretary said she would back David Cameron's 'In' campaign

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441473/Why-lady-turning-grave-Revealed-23-years-letter-proves-ex-aide-wrong-say-d-Dave-Europe.html

Nothing new there that wasn't common knowledge. As I said she might have been happy with the result but she would not have approved of a referendum. In fact the quotation I gave you was her response to a former PM holding a referendum on remaining in the EU as it was then.

Margaret Thatcher, newly installed as leader of the Conservatives put the counter case. In those days, she was a staunch believer in parliamentary sovereignty. She was also firmly pro-European.

However as we have seen all to often once people are no longer in power they often reverse their positions.

Maggie Thatcher is looking down with Happiness

Well she may have been happy with the result but she wasn't in favor of referendas

"How tired one gets of the well-worn cliché "the full-hearted consent of people"? What exactly is meant by this? Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case we would have no race relations act, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. All these laws were passed without this full-hearted consent nonsense but, if the polls are to be believed, in the face of a determined 70 to 80 per cent of the electors' wishes to the contrary."

London Evening Standard in March 1975 Thatchter

Attempts to disenfranchise voters rately end well

It would be a larger majority for brexit

I think it would be the opposite.

The issue is such an big caliber and many people were not awake once they were voting or decided not to bother to vote. It's quite clear that now the eyes are open and people realise the consequences of the exit.

If the second vote still says exit, then by all means exit. EU is ready for it and wish to get the exit over with as soon as possible. EU will loose England and Wales from the community, but will gain some businesses and probably better decision making process.

The turnout was 72 percent. The issues were debated for months and the pressure from the media and the establishment to force a Remain vote was enormous. Yet a majority of voters opted for a Brexit. That's democracy in action. Or have you spent so long in a country where democracy doesn't exist that you have forgotten what it means?

A slight error in that post that needs correcting. A majority of voters didn't vote for exit but a majority of those that did vote voted for exit. In fact I believe that just over 36% of voters voted for exit.

I've been through this before with another poster. Of course its in the EU's interest for article 50 to be invoked immediately - but not Britains.

Yes and what has been repeatedly pointed out to you that one of the central claims of that campaign was that it was costing us 350 million pound a week to be a member and we could save that money if we came out and use it for other social projects such as the NHS. However it now appears that it wasn't 350 million after all and there is no longer such a great urgency to save that money and in any event its highly unlikely that any social project such as the NHS will see even an extra bean.

We even have IDS even disassociating himself from the claim of 350 million while being shown previously standing in front of the battle bus with the claim blazoned on it.

The reason its not in the UK interest to hurry things along is that none of the principle proponents of exit have got the first idea what to do next and never did have or if they have they are not telling anyone.

Tsar Nicola is clearly delusional, as well as power-drunk. She can't throw a tartan spanner in the works of the British referendum result any more than she was able to overturn the Scottish referendum result in September 2014 which produced a small majority in favour of staying in the UK.

The Scots are stuck with being part of the UK at least until the lengthy process of terminating our membership of the European superstate is complete - which could take two years.

Only then could a Scottish referendum be held on UK membership - and even if Scotland's first minister got the "Out" vote she clearly wishes for, achieving re-entry into the EU would be a long and arduous process.

Nicola Sturgeon's stated goal is to achieve Scottish independence. But just how much independence is there in being shackled to the Euro and sacrificing national sovereignty to the unelected commissars of the European Commission?

Well it does appear that the Scottish people voted by a substantial majority in favour of remaining in Europe. I take it you are not one of those that wants to ignore the results of a referendum.